King v. City and County of San Francisco
- Alex Tse
- 3:21-cv-02843
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In King v. City and County of San Francisco, Judge Tse granted dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), allowed limited amendment, denied unrelated claims, and stayed discovery.
Troy King’s federal constitutional claims were dismissed, with permission to amend; his state-law claims were not decided at that stage. CCSF received a stay of discovery, and King could not add unrelated claims without express court permission.
What happened
In King v. City and County of San Francisco, Troy King sued the City and County of San Francisco over an exchange with an unnamed transit officer and a parking citation. He alleged unequal treatment, denial of due process, negligence, and intentional emotional distress. King represented himself.
The court ruled that King had not adequately alleged that a city policy or custom caused the constitutional violations, or that the city discriminated against him or denied him a protected property interest without required safeguards. The court did not decide the arguments about his state-law claims. It also said that the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency could not be sued separately because it is a city department.
Judge Alex Tse granted the city’s motion to dismiss and allowed King to amend only his existing claims. The court denied permission to add unrelated claims, stayed discovery, and set a deadline for amendment; if King did not amend by that deadline, his claims would be dismissed with prejudice.
The detailed version
- King v. City and County of San Francisco · No. 3:21-cv-02843
- Alex Tse
- July 22, 2021
Background
Troy King, who represented himself, sued the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF), the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), and unnamed defendants. The opinion states that SFMTA is a department of CCSF and cannot be sued individually. King alleged four claims: equal-protection and due-process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
According to the complaint, an unnamed SFMTA officer had an unpleasant exchange with King and then retaliated by issuing a fraudulent parking-violation notice for unlawfully being in a bus zone. King’s response brief stated that he is African American and believed the officer acted because he is a Black man. The court noted that the complaint itself did not allege facts connecting the alleged conduct to that protected status.
Federal Claims
CCSF moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. For a municipal-liability claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that an official policy or custom caused the constitutional injury. A city cannot be held liable merely because it employs the person who allegedly committed the violation.
The court found that King had not alleged facts showing that a CCSF policy or custom directly caused the alleged constitutional injuries. The court also found separate deficiencies in both constitutional claims. An equal-protection claim required facts showing intentional discrimination based on membership in a protected class, which the complaint did not provide. A due-process claim required facts showing deprivation of a constitutionally protected property interest; depending on the theory, it also required facts showing conscience-shocking conduct or deprivation without adequate procedural safeguards. The court found those allegations missing.
The court therefore granted CCSF’s motion to dismiss the § 1983 claims and allowed King to amend them. Any amendment had to allege a municipal policy or custom that directly caused a constitutional deprivation and facts supporting an equal-protection and/or due-process violation.
State Claims and Amendment
The court declined at that point to address CCSF’s arguments for dismissing the negligence and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims because it was unclear whether King would be able to state a federal claim. The order allowed King to decide whether to pursue those state claims in an amended complaint.
King also asked to add additional complaints and unrelated claims, including claims based on an April 30, 2021 parking-violation notice. The court denied leave to add new claims based on unrelated events. King could file an amended complaint consistent with the order by September 3, 2021, but could not add new claims without express permission from the court. The order states that if he did not amend by that date, his claims would be dismissed with prejudice.
Other Orders and Disposition
The court granted CCSF’s unopposed request to stay discovery. Discovery was stayed until the court found that King had adequately alleged a federal claim for relief or CCSF filed an answer to an amended complaint. Judge Alex Tse also rescheduled the initial case-management conference for October 15, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.